Research council asks for input on Danish PhD education

The Danish Council for Research and Innovation Policy (DFIR) is launching a project on the Danish PhD education to explore whether more can be done to improve the pathway to employment outside of academia and to enhance creativity during the PhD programme.

The DFIR presented the project in an unpublished paper seen by University World News titled “Is the Danish PhD education up to date?”

The paper stated: “The PhD education is fundamental for the food chain, both for production and the utilisation of research and innovation. We know that the Danish PhD education is of high quality. But is it up to date?”

The aim of the project is to invite stakeholders to discuss how to improve the quality and relevance of Danish research training in order to come up with possible improvements.

The paper noted that Danish research training is a decisive engine for research and research-based innovation. It also stated that staff with a PhD degree both in the public and the private sectors are adopting research in their work.

Also, persons with a PhD degree, both in Denmark and across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, have a higher employment rate compared with those with only a secondary education.

Referring to a report by the Danish think tank Kraka, the paper said there are both private and socio-economic returns from taking a PhD.

“So the PhD education is worth investing in. That is also evident when one sees that Denmark annually uses approximately DKK9 billion (US$1.34 billion) in private and public investments to educate good researchers.

“The PhD education is funded through basic funding at the universities, plus public and private funding sources. Denmark has the fifth highest number among the OECD countries in the production of PhDs in relation to the population each year after Finland, Australia, the UK and Switzerland,” the paper stated.

Phds working outside of academia

Nonetheless, the council is concerned about whether Denmark is getting enough out of the 85% of the doctorate candidates who find employment outside academia, arguing that there are many signs that the PhD is in need of updating.

The concern is motivated in part by a Danish Industry study which shows that 10 years after graduation, only 15% of PhD graduates are employed in scientific positions at universities.

This is despite the more or less implicit expectation from students and academics that the primary career goal of a PhD candidate is a tenured university post and the PhD educational process is tailored to this expectation, the study noted.

The DFIR also argued, as reported by University World News, that increased public, but in particular, private funding over the last two decades has led to an increase in the employment of post-doctoral candidates – a situation that prolongs the employment of PhDs in universities, but with “limited prospects for tenured positions” down the line.

Against this background the DFIR call is for new ideas and critiques on PhD training. The council poses three specific questions:

• Is the PhD education too narrowly focused on a research career, and could one strengthen the education for employers outside universities?

• Is the education to a sufficient extent preparing candidates for public and private entrepreneurship?

• Is there sufficient space for new thinking, creativity and missteps in the Danish PhD education?

Greater diversity

Professor Bjørn Stensaker, vice-rector for education at the University of Oslo, told University World News the observations made by the Denmark council were also relevant for other countries.

“Most PhDs are already employed outside universities, and looking ahead, this share will only increase in the years to come as universities are consolidating more than expanding.

“As Europe wants to strengthen its competitiveness, we will most likely see more R&D projects in collaboration with industry and the private sector, and this will, of course, have implications for both the content and the way PhD education is structured. We will see more diversity in how PhD education is designed,” Stensaker noted.

Stensaker said there might be some quality challenges ahead, as more diversified PhD programmes may struggle with creating a robust research environment in which supervisors and students challenge each other.

“If more generic skills are to be included in the education part of the PhD process, it will have implications for time allocated to more academic skills. Finding ways to integrate the two skill sets is perhaps the biggest challenge ahead!” he emphasised.

Charlotte Silander, an associate professor in political science and academic leader for EUniWell Arena for Social Equality and Wellbeing at Linnaeus University in Sweden, said the competence to conduct research – through a solid foundation in methodology, research design, theory, etcetera – was needed in industry, business and sectors such as defence as well as academia.

“It is scientific knowledge that fosters critical thinking and drives innovation. The notion that research conducted outside universities requires a fundamentally different set of skills than that within universities is, in my view, misguided,” she noted.

“A major issue is that many politicians and decision-makers lack a clear understanding of what research actually entails.

“They often assume that there are shortcuts to truth and knowledge – an assumption I strongly disagree with. These misconceptions are particularly dangerous in this era of artificial intelligence,” Silander said.

A balanced view

Professor Sverker Sörlin of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, who in 2005 to 2006 chaired a government investigation on PhD training which led to the expansion of PhD education in Denmark from 2008 (which also led to some concerns), said that the continued high level of interest in PhD training in Denmark was interesting to note.

“What I and my committee tried to do, now 20 years ago, was to assess whether the Danish system had a capacity to substantially increase PhD training and also to augment its role for employment outside of academia. We found that the answer was ‘yes’ to both questions,” he observed.

Sörlin said that it was “only natural” that new adjustments were made after more than 15 years.

“I think Denmark would do well to keep a balanced view on the two major missions of the PhD: academia and society at large. It is absolutely essential to maintain the scientific standards of all PhDs.

“Precisely because we all wish to bring not just higher numbers of PhDs – but more PhDs to serve in leadership and other key positions outside academia.

“We want to train PhDs to lead responsibly and with authority based in knowledge. This does not in any way preclude the possibility of adapting the training so that it has a distinct dual outcome, including special sector-specific content,” he stated.

Sörlin said weakening, or “adapting”, the standards of PhD training would only hurt Denmark’s “superb position” as a scientific nation, especially over the long term, and that would help neither Danish research, society nor business.

“If a (cheaper) ‘shortcut’ is sought to increase the presence of leadership expertise, I would rather look at ways to modify and sharpen certain masters programmes,” he said.

Sörlin also said it was essential to look at employable PhDs across all sectors of society, not just STEM.

“To strengthen societies in our time and day is just as much about providing expertise and leadership in the humanities and social sciences to solidify our social institutions, media and the public sphere in the face of growing tensions, erosion of knowledge and a need for social sense and values,” he concluded.